Talk:Vulpe (3.5e Race)
LA The LA needs to be from 1-2, and, noting that the red fox lives in the same areas as them, it would be reasonable for them to have vulpine as a automatic language. Nice alternative mate - good luck --Franken Kesey 19:06, March 5, 2010 (UTC) :Ummm, why does it need to be LA +1? What about this is so much more awesome than other base races? - TarkisFlux 19:18, March 5, 2010 (UTC) ::why is this getting +! to damage rolls for being small? small gives +1 to hit, but not damage. and +4 int is uber, i don't care who you are. his is designed to be an awesome wizard (small, +2 dex, +4 int) i could see a +1 la, or knock the int down to +2.--NameViolation 19:29, March 5, 2010 (UTC) :::Agree with nameviolation; while the net score bonuses are -2, they would still be "uber". Also with the exception of: high elfs, kobolds, and orcs, all SRD LA 0 races have +2 to one ability and -2 the another. Yet even the for mentioned races have no more than 1 +4 ability score. --Franken Kesey 19:40, March 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::Aparently the +1 was an error that has been corrected. And your other concern is that because it has +4 at all, despite being more than numerically balanced by other penalties, it's worth setting them back a whole level? I'd call this pushing the +0 race line (only because I can't think of any that offer +4s off the top of my head), but a single +4 when you have a net -2 to stats doesn't seem to push it over the top the way that the general net + and extra crazy crap of most +1 races does. I could see calling this bad design because it's intruding on +1 land without actually going there (and I think it is, and so should be boosted to actually be there or otherwise reworked, but that's just me), or even not allowing them as PCs in a game because you didn't want those bonuses for players, but I don't see that alone pushing them up to +1 land on it's own. - TarkisFlux 19:52, March 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::high elves are -2 con +2 dex, and kobalds don't have a +4, just a -4str, -2 con +2 dex. orc's get + 4 str but -2 int,- 2 wis, - 2 cha. but as it stands its small. http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/shadows/Handbook/ECLcalc.html ecl calculator gives it an ecl of 1.4, so its almost right. it should be dumbed down to 1 or beefed up to 2--NameViolation 19:54, March 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I don't know that tool at all, and don't want to go learn how it does what it does, but I think you're saying that the tool pegs it as a high LA +0 race. Since ECL = racial hit dice (or 1 if you don't have any like this doesn't), calculating an ECL of 1.4 gives us an LA of +0.4, which is a high LA +0 race. Which is more or less what I just said. I could see (and agree with) the desire to move it away form in-between land and closer to +0 or +1 proper, but that doesn't make it +1 as-is. - TarkisFlux 20:09, March 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Or he'll go off and just drop the int boost and make this all irrelevant :-/ I like the new array better anyway. - TarkisFlux 20:15, March 5, 2010 (UTC) AdaptiveImaginative Camo How does their adaptive imaginative camo work to hide them in the dark when they can't see or sense things to adapt to? I guess I'm fine with them being able to hide in low light like it was darkness, but hiding in darkness without darkvision seems off. Could just be me though. - TarkisFlux 19:52, March 5, 2010 (UTC) :It's not adaptive; It's a mechanical implementation of red fur. --Foxwarrior 19:53, March 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Fair enough, wrong word on my part. Same question then, with the right words, and expanded to include wondering why red fur helps make you hide from creatures who don't see color in the first place (darkvision using creatures in the dark). - TarkisFlux 20:03, March 5, 2010 (UTC) ::and normally something like a bonus because of color is just a +2 (maybe in certain conditions), not +5/-5. its more of a circumstance bonus.--NameViolation 20:18, March 5, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm guessing that red foxes are red because squirrels (and probably other small rodents) are color blind. With that assumption in mind, the Red Fox and the Vulpe get a bonus to hide in situations where color vision is not as readily available. Technically, it works because red foxes are the same shade as their surroundings, so I suppose I could make this ability more accurate: "Vulpes get a +5 bonus to hide checks against characters who cannot discern the difference between red and green in this light, and a -5 penalty to hide checks against characters who can", but that would make the rules for low-light vision cripple them continuously, which doesn't make sense because real-life organisms with good vision at night are more likely to be color blind. :::Okay, I'll change it to +2/-2. --Foxwarrior 20:20, March 5, 2010 (UTC)